The debate over Presidential Records Act and the Clinton 'sock drawer' case

Some are claiming that the PRA, aided by the Clinton 'sock drawer case' ruling (NARA v Judicial Watch) proves that Trump has sweeping authority over which documents belong to him, and which documents belong to the government and the idea that the PRA overrides the Espionage Act and thus Trump's defense counsel will easily get the indictment tossed out (well, if the Judge is Eileen Cannon, a loose cannon in the 11th circuit, anything goes, I suppose). I've seen this argument made a number of times on this forum.

Well, it is categorically false:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-makes-legal-claims-classified-225100248.html

"On the contrary, the former President had absolutely no right to have taken any presidential records with him to Mar A Lago," Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at NARA, told ABC News in an email.

"Under the Presidential Records Act, the Archivist of the United States assumed legal custody of all Trump White House official records immediately upon President Biden's swearing in as President," Baron said. "Every piece of paper constituting an official document, whether it was classified or unclassified, should have been turned over to NARA. Moreover, when NARA staff asked for the return of the records improperly taken, the former President should have immediately given NARA every official document in his possession."

"I think it is misleading because the Presidential Records Act just isn't the statute at issue," Margaret Kwoka, a law professor at Ohio State University, told ABC News of Trump's remarks. "There's no reason to think that the Presidential Records Act somehow overrides the Espionage Act," Kwoka added. "And so this is not, in my view, going to provide a very strong sort of basis for defense against the charges in the indictment."

"President Trump had the right to keep those types of records. But the argument being made by some that he had some kind of absolute authority while president to declare classified records or other official records about government business as his personal records is absurd in its face," he said. "It is also contrary to law. The decision by Judge Jackson cited prior precedent from the D.C. Circuit that stands for the opposite proposition."

"Judge Jackson went on to speculate about the level of deference to be afforded a president making a categorical decision about whether records of his were personal, but she never ruled on that issue," Baron said. "Instead, the case was dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff had no standing to compel the Archivist to seize materials not in the government’s possession."